Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub. Newspaper articles can sometimes sound like the roll call for the Trumpton fire brigade. Take this example from a Guardian cricket report a couple of weeks ago: "Broad appears to have it all... Sidebottom will presumably return for Pattinson, but a risk could be taken on Jones if England really are to rediscover the cutting-edge Flintoff was supposed to bring."

Some people don't like it. "It puts me in mind of old-fashioned public school headteachers or army colonels speaking to their minions," a reader wrote recently. It might be fine to use surnames for public figures such as sports stars, celebrities and politicians, she said, but not for people who are in the news through no fault of their own.

Referring to dead people, or their bereaved relatives, by their surnames in reports about accidents or killings "jars horribly" she added. She makes a good point, as does the reader who objected to a story, in April, about the deaths of James Hughes, a 22-year-old with severe learning difficulties, and his mother Heather Wardle. His remains were discovered in a suitcase a few days after his mother's body was found near the family home. The use of their surnames "lacked compassion" and was "disrespectful" she said. She contrasted that report with a story, in the same edition, in which 17-year old Megan Chapman, who died from a drug overdose, was called by her first name throughout.

Honorifics were abolished from all parts of the paper (but retained in leading articles) about nine months ago, David Marsh, the editor of the Guardian's style guide, told me, but they disappeared from the features and sports sections long before.

When the style guide was revised last November he suggested that the practice of using surnames should also apply to news stories. The main reason was consistency across the paper, but it's a style that's appropriate for the Guardian's global readers (and users) who are used to seeing news without honorifics, he said.

The previous stylebook had complex guidelines about the use of honorifics. The features and sports sections were another country, but news and comment journalists were told: "Tony Blair or Sir Bobby Charlton at first mention, thereafter Mr Blair, Sir Bobby etc." After giving the full names of sports people, actors, authors and so on, journalists were asked to used surnames ("Mr Picasso would sound odd," says Marsh).

Convicted criminals got the same treatment, but people charged with crimes retained their honorifics. "If people not normally given honorifics (such as footballers) are charged with criminal offences they are given back their titles for the duration of the case," the old stylebook said. And the dead kept their honorifics for a while, as a mark of respect, usually until after the funeral. You can see why Marsh was keen to establish a more consistent approach.

The new style guide simplifies things. "Use just surname after first mention, except in leader columns," it says, while cautioning journalists to avoid confusion: "Use common sense: in a story where two people have the same name (such as a court case about a husband and wife or brothers), it may be necessary to use Mr and Mrs or Ms, or forenames."

The approach goes with the Guardian's less deferential style, says Marsh: "There's an egalitarian aspect to this: it treats everyone the same."

Should a distinction be made between public and private figures? "We've considered different rules for people who are not in the public eye," says Marsh. "Sometimes surnames can seem to sound a wrong tone."

He agrees that the use of surnames can sound too harsh, particularly when there has been a tragedy. "Honorifics can sound pompous and old-fashioned, but there are a small number of occasions when surnames have jarred with people," he told me. There are circumstances when the guidelines should be ignored, he says. "If a teenager is killed, for example, you would expect to see his or her first name. As always, writers and subeditors are encouraged to use their judgment."